Subject: Re: [boost] [Boost-users] [afio] Formal review of Boost.AFIO
From: Robert Ramey (ramey_at_[hidden])
Date: 2015-08-24 13:21:21
On 8/24/15 9:59 AM, Sam Kellett wrote:
> so taking
> the word monad and the namespace boost::monad seems to be a bit scary when
> in the future they could be used for a totally generic full fat haskell
> type monad in c++ as you say.
I have personal experience with this problem. As I mentioned before,
when I made the boost serialization library. I included things like
state_saver, singleton, etc in the boost namespace. No one objected
through two reviews - but I eventually caught hell for this and ended up
moving to the namespace boost::serialization. (boost was a rougher
environment in those days). Seems to be an implicit but long running
consensus that only those components which have passed formal review
should be inserted directly into the boost namespace. I would agree
with this idea.
I raised a few concerns about the "monad" "library" when it was first
discussed on the list and never really bought into it as a boost library
(as constituted) and don't think it should be included now. Though I'm
skeptical of Niall's monad, I've got not complaint if Nail want's to
make boost::afio::monad and later try to get it "promoted" to
boost::monad. Doing this would demote Niall's monad to the status of
implementation detail or private API and hence wouldn't irrevocably
occupy any coveted territory. It would also make the review of AFIO
much easier and more likely to pass. It would also be an easy change
for Niall to (promise to) make.
Robert Ramey